Floor Statements

Mr. President, New START is a bad deal for the United States. It requires us to reduce our deployed strategic forces while the Russians can add to theirs. This amounts to unilateral reductions.

The treaty gives Russia political leverage, which they will use, to try to prevent us from expanding our missile defenses to protect us against North Korea and Iran. This is unacceptable.

The treaty fails to deal with Russia's reported ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons or their nuclear, sea-launched cruise missiles. However, the Treaty will limit our nonnuclear ballistic missiles.

Compounding these deficiencies, the treaty's verification is weak and the Russians have a poor compliance record.

As vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have reviewed all the relevant classified intelligence concerning this treaty. I come away convinced that the United States has no reliable means to verify the treaty's central 1,550 warhead limit.

It is also inexcusable that the United States has forfeited in this treaty the rights it enjoyed under START to full and open access to Russian telemetry. This amounts to giving up the ``keys to the kingdom,'' as it will harm our ability understand new Russian missile developments.

The administration has attempted to justify giving up Russian telemetry on the basis that it is not needed to verify the New START treaty. This is only true if you believe that the treaty's ten or fewer yearly inspections of Russian missiles will provide adequate verification. They do not. In fact, these inspections have three strikes against them.

Strike One: The 10 annual warhead inspections allowed under New START only permit us to sample 2 to 3 percent of the Russian force.

Strike Two: The inspections cannot provide conclusive evidence of whether Russia is complying with the 1,550 warhead limit. If we found a missile loaded with more warheads than Russia declared, it would be a faulty and suspicious declaration. However, we could not infer that Russia had thereby violated the overall 1,550 limit. The Russians could just make some excuse for the faulty declaration, as they have in the past.

Strike Three: New START relies on a type of on-site inspections that Russia illegally obstructed on certain missile types for almost the entire 15 year history of START. Russia's use of illegal, oversized covers were a clear violation of our on-site inspection rights under that treaty. As the old adage goes, ``fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.''

Common sense tells us that the worse a treaty partner's compliance history, the stronger verification should be. However, according to official State Department reports by this administration and the previous one, Russia has violated, or is still violating, important provisions of most key arms control treaties to which they have been a party. In addition to START, this includes the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, and Open Skies.

We also know that the lower the limits on our weapons, the stronger the verification should be. But with these lower New START limits, our verification of warhead limits is much worse than under the previous START treaty, with its higher limits.

With all these arguments against the treaty, proponents can only point to one tangible benefit--that we will know more about Russian forces with the treaty than without it. This is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Learning more will hardly compensate the United States for the major concessions included in this Treaty. What are these concessions? Unilateral limits, unlimited Russian nuclear systems, limited U.S. nonnuclear systems, unreliable verification, the forfeiture of our telemetry rights, and perhaps most importantly, handing Russia a vote on our missile defense decisions.

In many cases, concerns about particular treaties can be solved during the ratification process. My colleagues have my respect for their attempts to do so. Unfortunately, New START suffers from fundamental flaws that no amount of tinkering around the edges can fix.

For these and other reasons, I cannot in good conscience vote to ratify the New START treaty.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the biggest problem no one's ever heard of--America's 100 percent dependence on foreign countries for our rare earth needs--and to introduce legislation that is an essential part of the solution.

If you are at all like me, you may be scratching your head over what exactly are rare-earth metals?

To go back in time a little, more so for some than others, when you were studying the Periodic Table in high school chemistry, rare-earth elements are the metals you were told you would never have to worry about.

Unfortunately, that is the problem--until recently, no one was worrying about rare-earth elements.

But in fact, these metals are critical to U.S. economic and national security.

Back to that high school chemistry class again, rare-earth elements are metallic minerals that significantly enhance the performance of other materials.

These elements are used in small amounts in about every advanced industrial product--we are talking about a wide array of products that Americans depend on every day--from MRI machines to cell phones to computers.

In addition to being an essential component in everyday high-tech products, rare-earth elements are also necessary to our defense industrial base.

Precision guided missiles, secure communications, advanced jet engines, unmanned aerial systems, smart munitions, stealth technology and advanced armor all are rare-earth dependent systems and technologies.

Rare-earth elements also hold unique chemical, magnetic, electrical, luminescence, and radioactive shielding characteristics for environmental and ``green technology'' applications--like hybrid car engines.

Despite the importance of rare-earth elements, the United States is currently 100 percent import-dependent for our rare-earth needs.

Let me spell that out for you--while the United States today is the world's sole economic and military superpower, there is not a single U.S. or North American company actively producing rare-earth elements, metals, alloys or rare-earth magnets.

The United States Geological Survey, USGS, the National Academies, and the National Materials Advisory Board have all determined that rare earths are ``Strategic and Critical'' to U.S. Industry and National Defense.

Yet, the U.S. is 100 percent import dependent upon these materials?

How could we have let this happen?

How could we let a critical component of our economy become beholden to foreign entities?

Concerns about the world's dependence on rare-earth minerals are not just some attempt to read the tea leaves about some futuristic problem.

In fact, the problems for some of our allies have already started.

Over the past several months, Japan has sounded the alarm over their inability to acquire supplies of the rare earths to their companies.

What if our own Nation's ability to import rare-earth elements was restricted or stopped all together?

According to a Government Accountability Office report, GAO, earlier this year, it could take as long as 15 years to rebuild our rare-earth industry.

Common sense tells us that--considering our dependence on rare-earth metals--we don't have another day to waste.

That is what this bill I am cosponsoring today with my good friend, and fellow retiring colleague, Senator Bayh, is all about.

Our legislation will promote the domestic supply and refinement of rare-earth minerals.

It is time to take necessary actions to redevelop a domestic resource of rare-earth elements.

A domestic resource that will ensure we protect our national defense, technology-based industries, and the industrial competiveness of the United States.

Currently, there are no active rare-earth production facilities in the Western Hemisphere.

However, the Pea Ridge mine in Sullivan, MO, is one of two permitted, but shuttered, mines in the United States.

It is here where, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the greatest concentrations of both light and heavy rare-earth elements exist, particularly those needed for the defense industry.

Rare-earth ore, or oxides, extracted from these mines need to be reduced into a more pure elemental state before being used by industry.

Redeveloping our rare-earth capabilities will be no easy task--in fact, the hurdles for financing such a refinery are significant.

The cost to construct a modern rare-earth refinery capable of supplying a U.S. consumption of 20,000 tons per year is estimated at more than $1 billion.

I do not believe it is practical or desirable for the United States to depend upon any single rare-earth mining company to supply our Nation's rare-earth production or supply chain requirements.

This is why our legislation will require a feasibility study on building a U.S. cooperative refinery to process rare-earth ores from mines in the United States or other allied countries.

Such a cooperative, similar to our successful agricultural co-ops all across rural America, will set the stage for the U.S. Government to establish reserves and protect national security.

To brag on my home State for a minute--Missouri would be ideally suited for the location of a cooperative refinery, given the importance of the Pea Ridge deposit.

Missouri's experienced mining and minerals-processing workforce, its favorable access and costs to the utilities needed to operate a refinery and central location and transportation infrastructure all make Missouri well positioned to help preserve our Nation's strategic and economic security.

In dealing with the tremendous costs of establishing a production and refining facility, the legislation would also provide the Department of Defense $20 million to support the defense supply chain and also $30 million for the development of rare Earth magnets.

The time has come for our country to act and for this Congress-- certainly the next Congress--to take the necessary steps to secure our economic and strategic future. By ensuring that our Nation has its own domestic supply of rare Earths and the ability to process them, we should be able to compete in the 21st century.

The bill Senator Bayh and I have introduced will do just that. While introducing legislation during the last days of the lameduck may seem like a ``Hail Mary,'' this issue is too important to continue to ignore, and we felt it was necessary to launch a ``Hail Mary'' in hopes there will be others of our colleagues who will catch it and run with the ball in the next session of Congress--to mix up the metaphors badly.

In fact, ignoring our growing rare Earth needs and the overseas dominance and China's monopoly is how we got into this mess. Senator Bayh and I have laid the groundwork for this bill, and I hope my colleagues in January will call it back up and see it passed.

The bottom line is this: Just as we cannot afford to be dependent solely on foreign oil cartels for our Nation's energy, counting on any one or a few countries to supply all of America's rare Earth needs crucial to our technological innovation and national security needs is too risky a bet.

I thank my colleagues for listening. I hope they will take up the ball in the next Congress and make sure we begin to deal with this very important problem very seriously.

My colleague and chair, Senator Murray, is correct. In addition to the projects she mentioned, the project description under the Economic Development Initiative Account for the City of Brewer, ME, should read ``For the development of a riverfront trail system as part of the Penobscot Landing redevelopment initiative.''

Further, under the technical corrections table, Senators Chambliss and Isakson should not be listed for attribution for the Newton County Eastside High School to County Library Trail, GA.

My colleague and chair, Senator Murray, is correct, and I concur with these changes.

Thank you, Leader McConnell, for your very kind and generous words.

Since I announced I was not running for reelection, I have been overwhelmed by the nice things folks have been saying about me. There is nothing like being eulogized while you are still breathing. But to my good friend Mitch, it has been a long time since we sat back in the corner as the ``Not Quite Ready for Prime Time Players,'' but while I never made it to prime time, except, of course, one appearance as a very less-than-best-selling author on the ``Jon Stewart Show,'' you certainly have arrived.

You have led us through many difficult and protracted debates. Through all of it, you have been an agile, disciplined, and courteous negotiator, with a good sense of humor. You kept us together on many tough votes, at least as much as is possible to keep 40-something different, independent minds all together or, as I like to say, 40 frogs in a wheelbarrow. But I thank you, Mitch. While I have occasionally caused you heartburn--I realize that--I have always appreciated your intelligence, your leadership, and your friendship. You and Elaine are very close friends of Linda and myself, and we wish you both the very best for the future.

Farewell to the Senate

Two years ago I announced my retirement from the Senate, and that time has come. I have to begin by thanking all my colleagues and my constituents for making this job one of the best a person could hold. There is no greater honor than being given the trust of the people at home to represent them. I have done my best to keep faith with my constituents on every vote I have cast and every issue on which I have worked.

Through more than two decades of membership in this world's greatest deliberative body--sometimes delaying body--I have participated in my share of debates. When I first came to the Senate, the Cold War was a conflict some thought we would never win. Thanks to the courage and resolve of former President Ronald Reagan, millions of people now live in freedom. During this last term especially, it seems many debates will have history-shaping consequences.

America has faced many challenges in the past 6 years: the longest recession since the Great Depression, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the continuing battle against terrorism, the fight to be competitive in a global economy, and many more. As I look back, the successes we have achieved during my time here have come because people of good will were willing to work across the aisle for the common good of our Nation.

As I address the floor today, I am filled with memories of the many colleagues with whom I have worked over the years. One stands out in my memory--the one who was my best friend

and mentor in the Senate, who took me under his wing and treated me and my family as close friends, and that, of course, is the late Senator Ted Stevens. He was unflagging in his support of his principles, and everyone clearly knew where he stood. Yet he was a very effective appropriator because he knew how to compromise. I can only hope my colleagues and constituents know where I stand, and I, too, know that working across the aisle is the only way to get things done in this body.

Right after I arrived, I had the pleasure of working with the late Senator Robert Byrd, who achieved the acid rain trading compromise and passed the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. I also joined with former Senator Wendell Ford to establish a National Guard caucus, and now it is a pleasure to work with Pat Leahy to ensure that our dual-mission National Guard is adequately prepared to serve emergency needs on the homefront and participate in our national security issues abroad.

On the Appropriations Committee, I have enjoyed the successes I have had working first with Barbara Mikulski and now Dianne Feinstein to ensure that public housing meets the needs of the people it is supposed to serve and the communities in which they live, providing supportive assistance for the homeless--particularly veterans--and stopping lead paint poisoning of children in old public housing buildings across the Nation. Barbara and I also gave a boost to what I believe will be the job-creating technology of the 21st century: agricultural biotechnology. We did that with congressionally directed spending in the National Science Foundation budget.

With Senator Dianne Feinstein as chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, we have put, I believe, the Senate Intelligence Committee back on a path of bipartisanship and achieved passage of the first Intelligence Act Reauthorization in 6 years.

I especially owe my Republican colleagues my sincerest thanks and appreciation for sticking with me as we negotiated our way through some tough compromises, such as the fights we have had on FISA. But when the Help America Vote Act came to the Senate floor in 2001, ostensibly to cure problems with punchcard voting in Florida but which most of us Republicans thought was an effort to discredit the election of former President Bush, I urged my colleagues not to block the bill but to use it, not only to make it easier to vote but tougher to cheat. When we moved to the floor, I brought to the Senate floor a picture of a springer spaniel, Ritsy Meckler, who had been registered to vote in St. Louis, MO, to make the point that if we had positive identification, it would have been much more difficult for Ritsy to register or certainly to vote. My friend, Chris Dodd, with whom I had worked on many children and family issues and who worked with us on the HAVA Act, told me he never wanted to see a picture of that dog again, so I autographed the picture and gave it to him. I trust he still has it in his trusted memory box.

Right now we are engaged on the Senate floor in passing a bill that will stop historic tax increases from hitting most American families and the entire economy next year. I truly hope the House will be able to pass a bill for signature by President Obama so we can begin getting the economy to work again and preventing even more job losses. Assuming we can do it, the new Congress has to put our economy back on a sound footing. We must end the recent trend of the push for government overspending and passing the burdensome mandates on States and the private sector. Excessive regulations that go beyond reasonable safety and environmental restrictions are costing us jobs in agriculture, energy, and many other areas of the economy, and stopping badly needed developments that we in this country need.

The size of the debt has become an increasing concern for my constituents and others across the Nation. We have a debt problem that is caused by spending, not by having taxes too low. I am encouraged to see there has been more discussion of having a flat tax with lower rates, eliminating a wide range of deductions, credits, and other tax bill earmarks. Doing so would make it easier for all of us, as Americans, to fill out tax forms, eliminating the time and effort of figuring them out, and I think it should enable us to put more of those resources into what we need, our top priority: job creation.

Speaking of job creation, I think there are tremendous opportunities in export trade. I applaud President Obama's call for expanding trade to create jobs. I look forward to seeing his continued leadership and to seeing Congress move forward promptly to adopt the trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama. For our intermediate-term future, it is essential the United States participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership with countries on both sides of the Pacific to take down barriers to trade and increase export job opportunities.

As most of my colleagues know, I have been particularly interested in expanding trade with Southeast Asia, which I believe is not well understood by too many Americans. But the entire Asian region, however, provides huge opportunities for better American jobs through trade and investment across the Pacific.

In addition to expanding economic growth and jobs, trade is also an important element in SmartPower, the fight against terrorist insurgencies threatening other countries and ultimately those of us here at home. As I mentioned in the book the leader was kind enough to speak of, we can and must use trade, investment, and education interchanges to build strong economies as a necessary step as we use military action to stop imminent, violent threats. The combination can make stronger, stabler allies.

I think SmartPower was no better demonstrated than in the efforts of the Missouri National Guard Development team in Nangarhar Province in Afghanistan. These military-trained Guard men and women went to Afghanistan with strong private sector expertise in a wide range of agriculture activities and helped reestablish a profitable, legitimate agriculture in Agatha, while they were maintaining security.

By the end of the first 10-month growing season, illicit poppy production had dropped to zero in Agatha, which had been the second leading poppy producer in the Nation. I think we have to expand that model with more National Guard units deployed but also a better coordination of not only our military forces overseas but civilian assistance that must go with them. We must continue our efforts to avoid giving al-Qaida and its related terrorist allies an unchallenged place to develop recruiting and training camps, command and control units that threaten us.

One of the greatest challenges, however, is the publicly announced summer of 2011 withdrawal date from Afghanistan.

It has told our enemies they only need to wait until next summer to put our allies in the Karzai government on notice that we may not be there to protect them after the summer of 2011. As important, it tells the shura or local community leaders we will not be there next year to protect them from the Taliban, so they are less likely to cooperate with us. There must be a message, I believe, from the White House, widely disseminated, that we will pull out of Afghanistan only when conditions on the ground indicate there will be security.

A high point of my legislative career got an impetus in 2007, when I went with Senator Bayh on a congressional delegation, a CODEL, to Afghanistan. We were told that the limitations in the old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were a great threat to our troops as well as to those of us on the ground. I worked, as the leader said, from that point until the summer of 2008, with the strong support of my Republican colleagues, and a workable compromise across the aisle was developed which gave the intelligence agencies the access they needed and, at the same time, extended the protection of rights of Americans overseas from unwarranted interception of messages by telephone or e- mail.

As a result, we currently have that ability, but we must go to work quickly to make sure other provisions of vital intelligence collection measures and authorizations do not expire without legislative extensions. For the United States, our homeland, our defense against terrorist acts from prisoners of war is essential, and we must prevent the release of Gitmo detainees

to other countries, where they will return to the battlefield. The fact that one in four detainees already has come back is a frightening figure because we believe there are many more who will come back, and I fear one of those may conduct an attack on the United States. We need to have a law of war which allows us to hold them.

As a final thought on intelligence, however, the recent WikiLeaks scandal has shown us what damage the Internet can do to our diplomatic efforts as well as the safety of those in dangerous places with whom we have worked. The even greater threat we see is the continuing cyber attack on military intelligence and private sector critical infrastructure. With my colleague from Utah, Orrin Hatch, we have introduced a cyber security bill which will establish a cyber defense alliance to allow private sector entities to cooperate with government agencies to protect our critical financial systems, our utilities and, most of all, our communications systems from attack. The battle is underway, and we will need every effort to stay ahead of the developing attacks as well as helping the private sector protect their information.

In closing, I will tell my colleagues I have worked in all possible party combinations. I have been in the majority and minority. I have been fat and thin, and being thin and in the majority is a whole lot better. In my two terms as Governor, with a 70-percent Democratic majority in both the house and the senate general assembly, they explained to me how bipartisanship works. I figured it out during my second term, which enabled us to do better. It was my most successful term in any office, and the general assembly and I both achieved passage of all the legislative priorities we had.

So now if my colleagues will permit a little parting advice from an old bull: Work together, play nice.

I would follow up on the leader's comment about a little scuffle I had with Pat Moynihan. I never talked about it. We never said anything publicly until now. Later on, as we became fast friends, he used to tease me about setting up boxing matches so we could raise money for charity. But when I looked at his height and his reach, I didn't take him up on that.

In a world today where enemies are real--the kind who seek to destroy others because of their religion--it is important to remember there is a lot of real estate between a political opponent and a true enemy. In government, we expect spirited and principled debate where ideas compete and the best ones prevail. There will be issues where people of good conscience cannot come together, but let us never let what cannot be done interfere with what can be done. Events in the world and threats will continue to challenge us--terrorism, the economy, and growing debt.

Nearly 24 years ago, I was sworn in as a U.S. Senator. Since that time, I have been honored to work with you and others on all the priorities facing our country and many more. Public service has been a blessing and a labor of love for me. Little in life could be more fulfilling.

But I look forward to the next chapter in my life. I am neither shy nor retiring. There are ways to serve, and elective office is only one of them. I plan to continue fighting for Missouri and national priorities from a different vantage point.

Throughout 40 years of public life, I have met many wonderful people. I have visited every area of the State every term I have served in office. The people I have met in office and the people I have worked with have made the job so rewarding I decided to stay longer. The people of Missouri have been my most trusted and valuable advisers and I thank them for giving me support and helping me to identify not only the challenges but the solutions.

In addition to my colleagues and friends, there are too many others to thank, but let me give you the first one. First, to my patient family--my wife Linda, the light and love of my life; my talented, charming daughter-in-law Margaret, and my son Sam, whom I regard as my personal hero for his service as a marine ground-intelligence officer in Iraq.

Thanks to all who have worked for me in my office, on my committees, and those who have helped me with political activities--hundreds and thousands over the years. Some were not born when I started, others have passed away. Fortunately, many are still here.

As Mitch said, I thank my political adversaries for keeping me nimble and the media for keeping me humble. Most of all, I thank the voters of Missouri for sending me to Jefferson City three times and Washington, DC four times to represent them. There is no greater honor. I have been truly blessed to be entrusted by them with the responsibility of public office. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Madam President, I am humbled to follow my great, good friend, the eloquent orator, the wonderful Senator from Utah, Mr. Bob Bennett, a man who has been a giant in this Senate, not only terms of height but of intellect. We have followed his lead on many issues. I know the Senate will miss him.

Madam President, I am going to take advantage of the attention Senator Bennett brought to give some of my views on the economy and the compromise bill that we hope will be pending before the Senate. My apologies for lowering the grade of discourse by moving down to such a mundane but nevertheless important subject.

Madam President, it has been more than 2 years since the severe crisis beginning in the housing and mortgage markets nearly brought down the financial system, and with it the entire economy, in late 2008.

The American people are still struggling from the effects of this crisis. Unemployment continues to rise and is nearly a staggering 10 percent, millions of families continue to face home foreclosure, and many more are having difficulties finding financing to make large purchases or run businesses.

We face no more important task than stabilizing the economy. On November 2, Americans sent a clear message to Washington.

They have had enough of the runaway spending, the exploding debt, the bailouts, and the job-killing policies coming out of this Congress and administration. The recent election showed us that Americans will not settle for a Washington agenda that does not make economic recovery, fiscal restraint and job creation the top priority.

We need new jobs now. Plain and simple I cannot be any clearer about this point. As I have said repeatedly on this floor, government cannot create jobs, but it can create the conditions to allow the private sector to flourish through low taxes, commonsense regulations, and enhanced trade opportunities.

Unfortunately, for the past 2 years, Washington has moved in the opposite direction, seeking to raise taxes, increase regulation, and allow trade agreements to wither.

We now have an opportunity to move towards more commonsense approaches that will help in job creation. And we can start now, during this lameduck session.

We must address the looming tax hikes scheduled to hit every American on January 1.

The proposal the President outlined earlier this week is an important step., His efforts to stop the crippling tax hikes in January from hitting American families and small businesses show he has gotten the message.

I only hope he can convince Democrats in Congress what Republicans and the American people understand, raising taxes on the people and small businesses that create jobs is a really bad idea. The President's plan first and foremost ensures that our small businesses will not face the largest tax increase in American history.

Why is this important? Because our small businesses: Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, employ just over half of all private sector employees, pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll and, have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

As my colleagues know, most small businesses are taxed as individuals through their proprietorships, partnerships, or subchapter-S corporations. So if you raise taxes on those earning above $200,000 or $250,000, you are raising taxes on small business owners--the ones most able to create jobs.

The President's compromise also ensures the death tax will not come back to life at the sky-high rate of 55 percent. This is an important provision, because the death tax is anti-savings, anti-family, and anti-investment. It is quite simply unAmerican, and it should be eliminated entirely. The President's plan increases the estate exemption from $3.5 million to $5 million and maintain the 2009 rate of 35 percent is a step in the right direction. It will keep families production farms and businesses from having to sell the farm or business to pay estate tax. We need to pass this compromise before we leave town.

Extending tax cuts is one way we can help the private sector create jobs. That alone is not enough.

There is another area that Congress has direct control over, and that is spending. For the economy to recover and create jobs in the long term, Congress simply must control spending. Today, our debt totals more than $13.8

trillion, which breaks down to more than $44,000 for each citizen's share of that mind-boggling amount.

Likewise, our annual deficit, the amount we add to our children and grandchildren's credit cards, stands at roughly $1.34 trillion, but left unaddressed, could reach as high as $9 trillion over the next decade.

Both entitlement and discretionary spending must be cut. Runaway entitlement spending is stifling our prosperity and will continue to hold our economy back if not addressed promptly.

I am hopeful the next Congress will make this debate their top priority, enact necessary legislation to curtail our drastic runaway spending and raise revenue through a more fair and efficient tax regime.

I believe the debt commission has come up with a reasonable proposal. I may be so bold as to suggest that we establish a BRAC-type commission, a BRAC-type proposal, to deal with that Commission and say it can be accepted or rejected on a simple up-or-down vote by both Houses. That is one good step.

The other step that has to be taken is to reform entitlements. I am disappointed they did not deal with that. But the health care costs of Medicare and Medicaid plus Social Security are what is going to drive our spending through the roof.

Along with extending tax cuts and restraining spending, opening new markets to American businesses through free trade is another critical component to future economic and job growth.

Up until President Obama's recent push for trade in Korea, our pending free trade agreements have been held up to safeguard the interests of labor and extreme environmentalists. I congratulate the President for moving forward on this important job-creating agreement.

With the election behind us, I hope that the politicization of trade in Congress will be behind us as well.

The new Congress must renew its efforts to expand and open up new markets abroad, particularly in Asia where the most dynamic growth in this century will take place.

The Obama administration deserves credit for attempting to reinvigorate the U.S. focus on Asia and trade with this dynamic region.

Trips by the President and the Secretary of State to Asia have helped to elevate ties with longstanding friends and allies like Korea and Japan. They have also been working to forge deeper, stronger relationships with India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam.

Reaching an agreement on the U.S.-Korea FTA signals that the United States can return to a leadership position on trade and create some much-needed jobs based on exports here at home.

We must play a leadership role in negotiating and pursuing new FTAs, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and approving the long-awaited agreements with Colombia and Panama.

Even the Chairman of the President's own Export Council, Jim McNerney, CEO of Boeing, has warned that a failure to approve the free- trade agreements will leave the United States at a ``significant disadvantage'' to other nations that are working to lower barriers to their exports.

For example in Southeast Asia, where the United States exports as much as it does to China, China has negotiated a free trade agreement with all 10 ASEAN countries.

We are languishing while our competitors are moving forward with their own FTAs to give their exporters and their workers a competitive edge.

One such opportunity to increase jobs in the U.S. and secure our strategic interests in the paramount Asia-Pacific region, is the Trans- Pacific Partnership or TPP. The TPP would ensure the United States remains fully engaged in the Asia-Pacific region where strong economic growth will occur in the 21st century.

The partners involved in the TPP discussions now include, in addition to the United States: Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore and Brunei, which represent the fastest growing regions in the world.

Another way in which we ought to view the TPP, and other free trade agreements, is as a way to cash in on the peace dividends created in the region from our efforts in World War II, the Korean war, and the Vietnam war.

The TPP will open Asian markets to United States exports in a way that we have never seen.

We are already the world's largest exporter. We can build on that and create millions of new jobs by aggressively competing in markets abroad and by rejecting isolationism at home.

In closing I will put these economic considerations in a larger context.

In the 24 years I have been in the U.S. Senate, I have traveled around the world and have seen the remarkable change that came with the fall of the Soviet Union.

With the fall of Socialism and Communism, countries around the world immediately began to look to the United States as ``the'' economic model.

Our free enterprise system has demonstrated that successful businesses can provide job opportunities for all our citizens. This is a classic case of the rising tide lifting all boats.

As the economy gets stronger, people up and down the economic scale benefit, and people in low-wage jobs have the opportunity, through hard work and/or education, to move on up the ladder.

These countries are not looking to Denmark or Sweden with their very high tax rates as a model.

They see the difference between a government-controlled economy and a free economy with appropriate government regulation.

The European Socialist model has demonstrated that it does not grow as quickly as the U.S. economy.

High levels of unemployment generate more social welfare and transfer payments. These transfer payments put pressure on the government to raise taxes even higher, and make more people dependent upon the largesse of the Federal Government.

Last year's ``stimulus'' program did a tremendous job of putting more people on the government payroll. It did not do much for creation of jobs in the private sector.

The private sector in the United States has historically been vibrant and it will create jobs despite increasing government taxation, deficits, and regulation.

But the number of jobs created necessarily will be far less than what the free market system could create if it were not inflicted with an increasing government role.

Using history as our guide, high taxes and excessive spending, such as the new health care bill, will likely lead to a slower recovery, continued high unemployment, and a lower standard of living for all Americans than would otherwise be possible.

There is a chance now for us to reverse course, stop tax hikes, put the brakes on spending, reform entitlement programs, and to pursue new trade opportunities that will create jobs. I believe that is what the American people expect us to do.

Real growth is only possible if we get our fiscal house in order.

If we care about jobs in this country and the future of the economy, Congress cannot continue to vote for thousand-page bills that are full of job-killing provisions.

And Congress cannot continue spending in such a way as to destroy the prosperity of future generations stuck paying the bill.

I am hopeful that the next Congress will make this debate their top priority and enact necessary legislation to curtail drastically our runaway spending and to raise revenue through a more fair and efficient tax regime.

Madam President, I wish to include for the Record my discussion of the role housing played in the bubble we had, the crash, and the recession we have gone through. I have spent all my time in the Senate either looking at housing on the Banking Committee or as a member and then chairman or ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds housing. Most of my friends are not interested in hearing a full description of the

housing crisis and what needs to be done. I will give them the opportunity to read it at their leisure.

Promoting what we think is the American dream by giving people no- downpayment homes, homes which they don't have the financial ability to afford, is not the American dream. It leads to the American nightmare. The American nightmare, unfortunately, for too many families, has resulted in home foreclosures, and communities with large numbers of foreclosed houses that are deteriorating thanks to the genius of Wall Street which, through its wonderful, innovative efforts, created high- tech computer game derivatives on which they made profits by selling around the world, which crashed and brought not only our economy but the world economy down. We have to stop that trend. We need a responsible housing policy to rein in Fannie and Freddie, keep them from buying up housing mortgages which are not subject to underwriting standards which could cause problems in the future. These items are all laid out in the statement I include.

If anybody reads them, I would be happy to answer any questions they have.

I ask unanimous consent to have the statement printed in the Record.

I yield the floor to my good friend and fellow retiring Senator from my neighboring State of Kentucky, who has been known for his talents on the baseball diamond but also has some, I am sure, very candid comments on what he thinks the Senate has done and ought to do. I will listen with great interest.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 15 minutes.

Madam President, as America's energy needs continue to grow, so does our need for commonsense approaches to meeting these needs. Unfortunately, the Obama administration's announcement yesterday dealt a death blow to one of our most important ways to expand our domestic energy supplies. My message to the Obama administration is that we need to drill it, not kill it. Yesterday, the administration announced the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast to be off- limits to any new offshore drilling for the next 5 years. In

other words, the Obama administration decided to deny Americans new domestic energy supplies, deny Americans new jobs, and make America's energy prices rise.

In the wake of the BP oilspill, there is no question we are reminded of the need to preserve our environment as we seek to expand our energy growth by drilling for more oil. As we continue opening up new sources of traditional energy in an environmentally friendly manner, preventing spills must be a top priority. However, arbitrarily--arbitrarily-- closing off our own domestic supplies is not the answer.

First, this deathblow to offshore drilling will only make us more dependent on OPEC and Middle Eastern countries and hostile regimes that mean us harm. Also, this moratorium will cost us jobs at a time when America needs job creation more than ever.

The American Petroleum Institute estimates that we will not get 75,000 jobs as a result of the Obama administration's offshore drilling moratorium. Domestic production of energy will be integral for our economic growth. Production of domestic energy sources not only helps us meet growing demand and keeps us secure, but if the Obama administration removes their moratorium it will create jobs, and we need jobs.

Strict and arbitrary environmental regulations in place on coal mining, hydraulic fracturing of natural gas, and of offshore oil drilling just create a de facto moratorium on more production and on more jobs. Limiting production will make the sources we have available only more expensive. It is simply a matter of supply and demand.

As I have already mentioned, since energy demand will go up in the near future, these regulations--by hampering production--will serve as an indirect energy tax on consumers. Guess what. Remember, the $4-a- gallon gasoline we had a couple years ago? Well, we may see that, and even more, as a result of shutting off our domestic supply.

We should not be jumping to constrain domestic energy production without first giving any new regulations a very strict look to make sure we do not punish consumers just trying to power their households, fuel their vehicles, get jobs, and live their lives. We all know we need a new energy policy, one that enables us to find, create, and use domestically produced clean energy.

This is not the first time we have sought to do this, but the difference now is that we have a recession to contend with at the same time. People are struggling with high unemployment. In the Midwest, our manufacturing sector has lost thousands of jobs. In an economy with a stubborn, nearly 10-percent unemployment rate, the million-dollar question--or bigger than that--we all have these days is, How can we create jobs?

So as we approach changing our energy policy, while we all want to protect the environment--and we must--we have to ensure that the policies we choose will not have adverse consequences to economic growth. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues, and some in the administration, are focusing on jamming through Energy bills that would impose job-killing tax increases on farmers, small businesses, and families. Their ideas have ranged from a cap-and-trade tax bill to others that pick winners by awarding massive taxpayer-funded incentives to some and, in the process, harming others.

I think there is a better way to move our Nation to energy independence. The commonsense approach we have to take would make use of the clean, reliable sources we have here without picking sources and technology winners. We need to develop affordable, homegrown, and clean energy solutions to help push our Nation toward an independent and more environmentally friendly future.

I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I have been around the block a time or two, so I support many strategies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and cut pollution. I have to stress that, in fact, we will continue to rely on fossil fuels to meet a large portion of our energy demand. Coal accounts, for example, for 50 percent of our Nation's electricity generation and over 80 percent of Missouri's electricity. So we have to harness our abundant supply of coal in a clean way by helping to advance carbon capture and sequestration, or

Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Missourians, I wish to remember the life and achievements of Mr. Allan Purdy, a native of Missouri and the founding president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, NASFAA, who died at age 96 this past October. Mr. Purdy dedicated his life to removing financial barriers to higher education and the awards and scholarships that are named after him are a testament to his hard work and dedication to this purpose.

Mr. Purdy's passion for financial aid and serving students was sparked by his extraordinary life experiences. He graduated from high school without a nickel in 1932--the middle of the Great Depression. He managed to attend college through the National Youth Administration, a newly created national work program for students. Although he only earned $15 a month at 25 cents an hour through the program, it was enough to attend the College of Agriculture at the University of Missouri, where he ultimately earned a graduate degree.

After graduating, Allan taught at Rutgers University and then joined the U.S. Navy where he served as a PT boat captain during World War II. After the war, he returned to the University of Missouri, MU, to work as an extension horticulturist--driving across the State to help farmers resolve problems with their fruit and vegetable crops. As he toured the State, he met many qualified students who lacked the financial resources to attend college. He advocated grant and work aid for these students to allow them to attend college. Allan was so diligent at recruiting these students that he was promoted to assistant to the dean of the College of Agriculture. In this position, he recruited students, arranged scholarships and part-time jobs for students, and helped graduates find jobs.

At this time, catching the attention of the MU president, Allan was asked to start a department in the President's Office to coordinate all scholarships, jobs, and loans for all students on campus. Under the direction of the MU president, Allan began meeting with other aid administrators in the Midwest, which led to the formation of the Midwest Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators in 1962. The group eventually grew to become NASFAA in 1969 and was incorporated in 1973 as a nonprofit corporation in the District of Columbia and emphasized, above all else, the needs of students.

Shortly after Allan's retirement in 1979, as then-Governor of Missouri, it was my pleasure to appoint him to the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, MOHELA, in 1981 where he served more than 20 years. During that time he worked to implement borrower benefit programs including loan forgiveness and low interest rates. The Purdy Scholarship Fund to benefit students demonstrating the greatest financial need was also established to honor his legacy.

At the 2006 NASFAA National Conference in Seattle, Mr. Purdy told his financial aid colleagues, ``It has been a wonderful 40 years of service to students.''

``It is, I'm sure, a wonderful experience to each of you when you see students that have long-since graduated and now are gray-haired, and they thank you for what you have done for them over the years,'' Allan added. ``That is your overtime pay. Certainly we are not in the highest paid profession, but I think that we have the highest rewards for the work that we have done.''

Allan is survived by his wife Vivian and their four children, Robert, George, Ray and Christina, and their families.

It is my distinct honor to remember Allan Purdy's life today. His legacy of opening the doors of college to Missourians will be remembered by the countless lives he touched.

Madam President, I understand I have 15 minutes.

Will the Chair advise me when 10 minutes has been used.

Madam President, as I will be leaving the Senate in a few weeks, I ask my colleagues to indulge me as I speak for a few minutes on a subject I believe is very important, and that is continuing the policies and funding that help drive scientific advancement in new areas, particularly agricultural biotechnology.

It goes without saying that we are living in a time of breathtaking scientific discovery, whether the field is aerospace, information systems, or biotechnology.

In the last hundred years, science has taken us from the Wright Brothers first flight to manned space flight. Science has taken us from Henry Ford's first car to today's vehicles hosting full-fledged entertainment systems and global positioning systems. Science has taken us from typewriters to supercomputer and from candles to electricity.

Science is moving even faster now. Advances in technology will continue to reach far into every sector of our economy.

Future job and economic growth in the areas of health care, life sciences, industry, defense, agriculture and transportation is directly related to scientific advancement. And America's

future wealth and economic preeminence is tied to technological advancement.

Technological advancement will continue to drive our economy, job growth and our quality of life.

While most of the work is being done by our scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and educators, government can play a role in helping create the conditions for them to succeed: through research funding, through tax policy, and through free trade agreements. This is especially true when it comes too agiotechnology.

Looking back about 15 years ago, I received a strong push for a new idea--mapping the corn genome, one of the first real biotech projects for commercial agriculture. This push came not from leaders in education, science or the corporate world--and we have many--but from corn growers and soybean producers in Missouri.

Our producers convinced me that biotechnology was not only key to improving farm incomes and the rural economy, but in revolutionizing the world in the same way the steam engine revolutionized industry, and the computer revolutionized the sharing of information.

At that time, it was tough to get anyone interested in the project-- Congress, the media, even my own staff. Imagine running for reelection and telling your staff: hey, great idea, I'm going to campaign on the corn genome.

As Mark Twain said:

A crank is someone with a new idea--until it catches on. Back then, those of us peddling biotechnology sounded like cranks.

The first time I asked the Agriculture Appropriations Committee to fund biotech projects, I didn't get a single dime.

But we persisted, anyway. I teamed up with my colleague and good friend, Senator Barbara Mikulski, on a bipartisan initiative to fund biotech research through the National Science Foundation.

Through the years we have provided nearly a billion dollars to NSF.

With the help of Missouri's-own Chancellor Bill Danforth and Roger Beachy as well as others, Senator Tom Harkin and I sponsored legislation creating the National Institute of Food and Agriculture to support the competitive research at the Federal level needed to advance agriculture science.

Fifteen years later, we now have the proof that this idea really is changing the world, as promised.

Already, hundreds of millions of people have been helped by biotechnology drugs and vaccines that can cure diseases and eliminate the need for surgery. And there are many more drugs and vaccines being tested which will eventually help us treat other diseases.

Agricultural biotechnology is bringing hope to those in the developing world by providing crops that are more pest and disease- resistant and more nutritious.

It helps our farmers by consistently increasing crop yields, especially as our global population continues to increase while available farmland decreases.

From an environmental perspective, the use of transgenic seeds has reduced pesticide application on our fields by tens of millions of pounds annually in the United States alone.

And--especially important now during the tough recession we are in-- agriculture biotech creates good, high-paying jobs and helps revitalize rural economies.

The sky is the limit for the future of biotech. Advances here will continue to impact the entire world.

Madam President, 2005 marked the year that the billionth acre of transgenic crops was planted worldwide, a notable achievement in a field of science that was at the time only a decade old.

In 2008, the second billionth acre of a biotech crop was planted only 3 years after the first.

All this while a handful of professional antitechnology activists are still, unsuccessfully in search of their first stomach ache. Their persistent Luddite-type hatred of ag biotech, though without any scientific support, has fueled fear of genetically modified, GMO, foods, even in less developed countries, where near-term starvation is a real prospect without a ag biotech.

The growth of biotech will continue to explode in future years. Developing countries using ag biotech out number industrial countries by a ratio of three to two.

In fact, resourceful farmers in some countries are approving biotechnology before their lagging governments do.

Growth brings with it many opportunities for scientists from the ``developed world'' to collaborate on biotechnology projects with scientists in the developing world.

But how do we ensure that all people, especially those who need it, are not left behind?

We must do it. There is a humanitarian imperative. People who are well fed have many problems, a people who are hungry have only one problem.

As Norman Borlaug put it:

Without food, man can live at most but a few weeks; without it, all other components of social justice are meaningless.

We simply cannot afford not to tap into the promise of biotechnology. By 2050, developing countries will be home to 90 percent of the expected population of 9 billion.

However, while the world is expected to increase its population by more than 30 percent the area of productive agricultural lands in the world remains relatively unchanged. Traditional agriculture cannot keep up.

Increasing crop yields--and income--is especially important in a world where according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, 925 million children go to bed hungry every day and several million of them die from nutrition-related illnesses every year.

For these individuals, a crop failure can mean the difference between surviving and starving.

We are not without challenges.

Although diminishing, a vocal and aggressive group of advocacy organizations continue to market fear rather than sound science, especially in Europe.

When public policy decisions are based on fear, rather than sound science, we are in trouble.

My good friend Dr. Martina McGloughlin has argued that some multinational corporations operating as NGOs shamelessly hype fear of biotech GMO and use fear to solicit funds for their salaries--these are the modern-day Luddites who know how to profit from their self- generated hysteria.

The result: the science cannot get to the marketplace and improve people's lives.

Fortunately the European Union is perhaps beginning to see they are missing out. They have begun to soften their opposition--however slightly--on genetically- modified imports.

The stakes, of course, are higher in developing nations than in Europe, where most are well fed.

The late Dr. Norman Borlaug, the unassuming humanitarian credited with feeding a billion people and saving the lives of hundreds of millions, warned us about the biotech naysayers.

He worried that ``fear-mongering'' by environmental extremists against pesticides, fertilizers and genetically-improved foods would put millions at risk of starvation while damaging the biodiversity those extremists claim to protect.

So we must do a better job, as policy makers, educators, business leaders, and scientists to communicate the value of biotechnology to those around us.

As my colleagues know, we are struggling to find our way out of this recession and create new jobs.

Some of the millions of jobs lost during the last 2 years are never coming back.

Biotech shows the promise of replacing some of those jobs. And biotech will provide the jobs of the future. Whether in the research lab, the incubator, in a small company or a large corporation, biotech is creating good, high-paying jobs. It is extremely important for producing enhanced revenues and jobs.

That is why ongoing workforce development and job training in new fields like biotechnology is so important.

And it is good to see some of our educational institutions getting involved.

Missouri Western University in St. Joseph, MO, has built a biotech incubator to encourage new businesses in the area and to help train workers.

Not long ago, I visited a St. Louis Community College program that is

training young people to work in biotech labs. They are getting on-the- job training at an incubator known as BioBench.

That's a win-win. It's a win for young people trying to find jobs in the new economy, and it is a win for the companies who need the skills of these workers.

Efforts like these keep high-paying, cutting-edge jobs right here in the United States.

One key to making sure the benefits of biotech continue to grow is making sure the American public and press, beyond farmers, researchers, a few company leaders and policy makers understand the value of biotech. Those who understand biotech must make a conscious effort to educate their peers and leadership across the country.

We need to develop advanced science and technology curriculum that prepares our students for the high-tech jobs of the future. A growing industry needs a pipeline of future talented workers. We need to continue to expand hands-on training opportunities to prepare and transition our current workforce into these new high-tech jobs.

So there is good news on many fronts when it comes to the future of the biotech movement. But we need a continued, strong, public-private partnership going forward.

As I mentioned earlier, in the last 12 or 13 years, Congress has provided nearly a billion dollars to the National Science Foundation to conduct plant biotech research, building on the initiative Senator Mikulski and I introduced in the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.

The need for continued investment in basic research is crucial to the growth of biotechnology and I hope Congress will continue to fund research in this area.

While I won't be around to beat the drum next year from the inside, I have worked with my colleagues Senator Johanns and Senator Klobuchar to create a new Biotech Caucus. I hope those of you who understand the challenge and promise of ag biotech will choose to join the ranks and communicate the benefits of ag biotech to our peers.

While we have much to be proud of when it comes to developments and advancements in biotechnology--we cannot rest on our laurels. We must continue to support basic research in our Nation's labs. We must continue our investment in the buildings and equipment that make it possible. We must continue to create policies that allow biotech businesses to flourish--bringing critical research from the lab shelves to the marketplace and the benefits to our citizens. We must support job training for new workers and help transition the current workforce into these high-tech jobs of the future. And, maybe most important, we need to continue to educate those who do not understand the full magnitude and benefit of biotech.

Only through effective communication can we ensure that sound science--not myths and fear--guide public policy.

In closing, let me say that in 40 years of public life, I have seen a lot of great ideas come and go. I strongly believe ag biotech is here to stay and will grow. We are only just beginning to see the many exciting applications biotechnology can offer. It is truly changing lives, for the better.

In my opinion, a dedicated and collaborative investment by policymakers, researchers, educators, and farmers will result in a vibrant industry that will fuel our economy, improve our environment, and feed our world for years to come.

Madam President, I have a very sad message to bring to the body today. It is with great sadness that I report that we have lost one of our own, Julie Dammann, who lost her brave 11-year battle with cancer.

All of you who knew Julie knew of her superior abilities, high spirit, and unshakably impervious character in the face of adversity. As she was struggling with this disease and going off for weekend treatment on Friday, with a bright smile, she always insisted, when asked, that she was ``doing great.'' Her life was far too short, but few on Earth live a life as fully as she did.

Julie was a rural kid from Minnesota and graduated from the University of Minnesota. She worked for Rudy Boschwitz before I was fortunate enough to hire her in 1987. Most recently, she went to work as a senior vice president with Ogilvy Government Relations.

But in 1987, after joining my staff as legislative director, she met Rolf Dammann at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who was apparently interested in more than her highly regarded legislative acumen. Rolf's newfound interest in budget and appropriations issues eventually paid off, and they were married--after the 1988 election, of course.

They both enjoyed politics, history, golf, German beer, and their two lovely daughters Monika and Paula. Throughout her battle with cancer, they were always by her side.

Within any successful enterprise, there is the heart of the operation. In the case of Julie, she was the heart, the legs, the mind, the backbone, and the can-do spirit of my staff. For me, from the first time she walked into my office, she was also my friend.

Remarkably, from that first day through 24 congressional sessions, three reelections, marriage, motherhood, and her bravely defiant fight against cancer, she never stopped. She never rested. F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, ``Action is character.'' In that case, Julie was character. Now, some who dealt with her would say ``character'' is probably an understatement.

Her ability to multitask was legendary. During her time as chief of staff, she could simultaneously talk with me, listen to C-SPAN, BlackBerry instructions to her staff, check out statistics of the previous Vikings game, and evaluate the potential draft picks 9 months in advance--not only for the Vikings, but she learned to do the same for the Kansas City Chiefs and the St. Louis Rams. We tried to keep up, but it was hard.

The fact that she was able to stay in my employ after the Twins- Cardinals World Series of 1987--an epic tragedy for Cardinal fans-- speaks volumes to her otherwise high value.

There is seldom enough recognition of the high-caliber people who staff us in the Congress and the government. Julie was exceptional among the exceptional. From 1987 to 2005 while on my staff she was a perfectly reliable source of sound judgment, energy, cheer, and friendship.

She knew the budget, the whip count, the box scores, the news ratings, the third down conversion rate, the poll numbers, the economic report, the schedule, the process, the players, the politicians, as well as every competing argument. But mostly she knew and loved people. She was the ideal public servant.

Our sincere condolences go to Julie's husband Rolf and their daughters Monika and Paula. The girls will carry on with the richest of all inheritances: having their mother's genes and love and guidance to remember. Julie could not have been in more diligent, loving hands than those of her husband Rolf. We thank him for taking such special care of her. We have lost a special friend, but now we are blessed with a special angel.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of her obituary from the Washington Post printed in the Record.

Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the administration's New START Treaty. I do so after great deliberation and after initial disposition to support the treaty because of the generic importance of these types of treaties for our Nation. But with what I have learned from classified intelligence information, I cannot in good conscience support this treaty. I have written a classified letter summarizing my views that is available to all members in Senate security; I urge them to read it, even as I try now with a few unclassified comments to explain my position.

When the administration announced this new treaty, we were told that its goal was to reduce strategic nuclear forces in a manner that would make America safer and enhance nuclear stability. That goal may be admirable, but unfortunately, the deal the administration has struck with Moscow falls well short. Consequently, I believe the administration's New START Treaty has been oversold and overhyped.

The first thing we must all understand about this treaty is that it forces the United States to reduce unilaterally our forces, such as missiles, bombers, and warheads, in order to meet treaty limits. On the other hand, the Russians will actually be allowed to increase their deployed forces because they currently fall below the treaty's limits. This raises a crucial question: exactly what does the United States gain from this treaty in exchange for a one-sided reduction in our deployed forces?

Defenders of this treaty have argued, first, that the treaty places no limits on America's plans for missile defense systems, and second, that our own military will have the flexibility to deploy our strategic forces, such as bombers, submarines, and missiles, in ways that best meet our security interests.

Unfortunately, these explanations simply do not stand up to scrutiny. The United States does not need a treaty with Russia, or any other country, to be free to pursue the missile defense system we need to keep America safe. The United States does not need a treaty to give us the flexibility to deploy our strategic forces as we wish.

Interestingly, the administration's justifications completely dismiss the unilateral statement Russia has made to this treaty that claims the right to withdraw if we expand our missile defenses. This Russian statement is pure and simple manipulation.

At some point down the road, our Nation will need to expand its missile defenses. Because of this unilateral statement, however, the reaction from some in the administration or in Congress will be to reject any expansion lest we upset the Russians and cause them to pull out of this new Treaty. The Russians surely are counting on this reaction. Yet in all the rhetoric in support of this treaty, I have not heard any reasonable explanation for why we would give Russia this lever to use against our legitimate and necessary right to defend ourselves against ballistic missile attack.

For several months, we have listened to the administration's claims that New START will make America more secure by strengthening nuclear stability. In the ``Show Me'' State, where I come from, and I suspect throughout the rest of the country, claims like this need to be backed up by facts. But if we cannot verify that the Russians are complying with each of the treaty's three central limits, then we have no way of knowing whether we are more secure or not.

The Select Committee on Intelligence has been looking at this issue closely over the past several months. As the vice chairman of this committee, I have reviewed the key intelligence on our ability to monitor this treaty and heard from our intelligence professionals. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States cannot reliably verify the treaty's 1,550 limit on deployed warheads.

As an initial hurdle, the ten annual warhead inspections allowed under the treaty permit us to sample only 2 to 3 percent of the total Russian force. Further, under New START, unlike its predecessor, any given missile can have any number of warheads loaded on it. So even if the Russians fully cooperated in every inspection, these inspections cannot provide conclusive evidence of whether the Russians are complying with the warhead limit.

Let's take an example: say that the United States found a missile that was loaded with more warheads than the Russians declared. While this would be a faulty and suspicious declaration by Russia, we could not necessarily infer from it that they had violated the 1,550 warhead limit--especially because the Russians could always make some excuse for a faulty declaration.

Compounding this verification gap is the current structure of the treaty's warhead limits which would allow Russia to prepare legally to add very large numbers of warheads to its forces in excess of the treaty's limit. For example, the Russians could deploy a missile with only one warhead, but legally flight-test it with six warheads to gain confidence in the increased capability--a practice they could not employ under the original START. The Russians could then store the five extra warheads for each such missile nearby, ready to mate them to the missile on a moment's notice. All of this would be legal.

Further, unlike START, this new treaty places no limit on the number of nondeployed missiles, so the Russians legally could store spare missiles to be mated with the spare warheads. This potential for Russia to ``break-out'' of the treaty in a short period of time--perhaps without adequate warning to the United States--may undermine the very nuclear stability this administration claims this treaty provides.

Arguably, it also means that, despite the opportunities to cheat, it may be even easier for Russia to circumvent legally the limits of this treaty. That does not sound to me like a great bargain for the United States.

Because the details on verification and breakout of this treaty are classified, I have prepared a full classified assessment that is available to any Senator for review. The key points, however, are not classified and I believe the Senate and the American public need to understand them fully.

Common sense suggests that the worse a treaty partner's arms control compliance record with existing and past treaties, the stronger verification must be for any new treaties. So, exactly what is Russia's record? According to the official State Department reports on arms control compliance, published by this administration and the previous administration, the Russians have previously violated, or are still violating, important provisions of most of the key arms control treaties to which they have been a party, including the original START, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, and

Open Skies. I recommend that my colleagues review the classified versions of these reports before any further Senate action is taken on this treaty.

Despite Russia's poor compliance record, the administration has decided that we will rely primarily on good Russian cooperation to verify New START's key 1,550 limit on deployed warheads. This brings to mind the famous adage: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

One of the persistent Russian arms control violations of the original START was its illegal obstruction of U.S. on-site inspections of warheads on certain types of missiles. The only reason these Russian violations did not prevent us from verifying START's warhead limits was because START limited the capability to deploy warheads through a ``counting rule'' that could be verified primarily with our own intelligence satellites. Unfortunately, New START has discarded this critical counting rule, designed to work hand-in-glove with our satellites, in favor of reliance on no more than ten sample inspections a year--again, just 2 to 3 percent of Russia's force.

The warhead limit in New START is calculated from the actual number of warheads loaded on a missile, and unlike START, this new treaty permits any missile to have any number of warheads loaded on it. But no satellite can tell us how many warheads are loaded on missiles. Therefore, if this treaty is ratified, we will have to rely primarily on on-site inspections to verify actual warhead loadings the very same kind of inspections that the Russians violated in START. If the Russians continue their poor compliance record and obstruct our warhead inspections under New START, the consequences will be much more serious and will substantially degrade verification.

The administration is surely aware of these verification and breakout problems as there is no shortage of verification gimmicks in this treaty. But not even all of them together permit us to verify reliably the treaty's warhead limit. So how have treaty enthusiasts responded to these problems?

First, they discard the military significance of possible Russian cheating. Our own State Department's verification assessment states that:

any Russian cheating under the Treaty would have little if

any effect on the assured second-strike capabilities of U.S.

strategic forces. In particular, the survivability and

response capabilities of [U.S.] strategic submarines and

heavy bombers would be unaffected by even large-scale

cheating.

This is not exactly a ringing endorsement. I think it is pretty clear that a large-scale breakout would have a seismic impact from a geopolitical perspective. It would escalate tensions between the superpowers and lead to extreme strategic instability. Even more fundamentally, the State Department statement raises a pivotal question: If no level of Russian cheating under New START is deemed militarily significant, then what is the value of this treaty in the first place?

Second, treaty proponents attempt to draw a parallel to the ``Moscow'' arms control treaty, signed by President Bush and approved 95-0 by the Senate. They argue that this treaty has the same kind of warhead verification difficulties as New START, therefore critics of New START are applying a double-standard. This argument fails on two counts: the first being that the Moscow arms control treaty was placed on top of the verification measures already in effect for START; and second, that the United States had decided unilaterally to move to the limits imposed in the Moscow treaty, whether or not Russia reduced to them. This is simply not the case for New START. Clearly, the two treaties are not comparable from a verification standpoint.

The administration also argues that our ability to monitor Russian forces will be greater with the new treaty than without it. As a general proposition, this is true. In actuality, however, the extent of the treaty's monitoring benefits could be insignificant or only modest in some important respects. This disparity between generalization and reality is explained more in my classified paper.

The bottom line is this: if the chief benefit of this treaty is that we will know more about what Russia is doing with its nuclear forces, then the same benefit could have been achieved with a much more modest confidence-building protocol, one which would not require unilateral U.S. force reductions, give Russia a vote on our missile defenses, or present impossible verification problems.

The administration claims that New START is indispensible to reap the ``Reset'' benefits with Russia. If a fatally flawed arms control agreement is the price of admission to the Reset game, our Nation is better off if we this one out.

Similarly, any suggestion by treaty advocates that rejecting the treaty weakens the ``good'' Russian leader, Medvedev, and strengthens the ``bad'' Russian leader, Putin, should be met with healthy skepticism. Now is not the time to fall for a ``good cop--bad cop'' act from Moscow.

In many cases, concerns about particular treaties can be solved during the ratification process. I respect my colleagues who are attempting to do so with this treaty. Unfortunately, New START suffers from fundamental flaws that no amount of tinkering around the edges can fix. I believe the better course for our nation, and for global stability, is to put this treaty aside and replace it with a better one.

The United States needs, and we in the Senate should demand, a treaty that can be reliably verified by our own intelligence assets without relying on Russia's good graces, not one that requires unilateral reductions or gives Russia a vote on our strategic defenses. I urge my colleagues to reject anything less and to take a strong stand for America's defense and America's future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 15 minutes, with the time to be charged against the debate postcloture.

Mr. President, I have had the distinct privilege over the past 8 years of serving on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, serving as the committee's vice chairman for the past 4 years. In this role I have been privy to our Nation's deepest secrets, including great successes and some failures. Unfortunately, the failures usually get leaked to the media while most of the successes go unheralded. While I am not at liberty to discuss those successes here, I can witness to the fact that we have an outstanding fleet of intelligence personnel who selflessly sacrifice their time, and sometimes their lives, to protect our great Nation. Those professionals deserve our undying gratitude, and we all can be proud of their service. It has been a distinct privilege to me to oversee their work, and for their dedication to our Nation, I am ever grateful.

As I leave the Senate, having served in this privileged capacity as vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, I leave for my colleagues some thoughts, and recommendations on improvements that can be made on intelligence matters going forward, which I believe will enhance our national security.

First, let me start with the Congress. Members of Congress often like to criticize the executive branch, as is appropriate, but Congress needs to get its own house in order as well. I joined the Select Committee on Intelligence in 2003, and during the past 8 years the committee has had three chairmen: Senators Roberts, Rockefeller, and Feinstein; and two vice chairmen: Senator Rockefeller and me. It has been a challenging time, and we have had our highs and our lows. After December 2004, the committee failed to pass an annual authorization bill that could become law for almost 6 years; this was due purely to politics in the Congress.

Although the committee was able to pass unanimously results from an investigation on pre-Iraq war intelligence failures, it was by and large hindered by political infighting for several years. In 2003, a memo was found written by a committee staffer that advocated attacking intelligence issues for political gain to damage the Republican administration and the Republican majorities. That memo was ultimately discredited by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but it marked a low point in the committee's history, and it should never happen again. Chairman Feinstein and I have worked hard to bring the committee back into bipartisan operation of intelligence oversight. We hope that the Intelligence Authorization Act that the President signed into law recently has helped in getting the committees back on track.

One area where I strongly believe the Congress has yet to heed the warnings of the 9/11 Commission and other study groups is in reforming its approach to appropriations for intelligence. That is why in 2008, the SSCI passed a resolution to establish an appropriations subcommittee on intelligence, something the full Senate had already passed in 2004. Yet the Appropriations Committee has failed to act. I continue to believe this is vital to improving oversight and funding of our Nation's intelligence, and I urge the Senate in the next Congress to make this happen.

The past 8 years have been ground-breaking years in Intelligence, particularly as the war on terrorism has played out in Afghanistan and Iraq. As I speak today, U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan continue to fight terrorists--al-Qaida, the Taliban, Haqqani, and others who threaten the stability and future of the region. They fight not only to bring stability to the region but to disrupt the sanctuaries and dismantle the organizations that can and do facilitate terrorist attacks against the United States at home, our troops in the field, and our allies abroad.

My profound respect and gratitude goes out to those serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and across the globe. We have asked so much of them and their families. They have made enormous, in some cases ultimate, sacrifices, and our Nation is forever in their debt.

As we learned in Iraq, fighting the enemy is not enough. A comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy is required. It must combine kinetic power--military attacks against terrorists and insurgents--with ``smart power''--the development of host nation capabilities and infrastructure, and a sensible mix of economic, development, educational, and diplomatic strategies. We know that understanding the complexities of the region and the forces at play puts additional burdens on the resources and capabilities of the intelligence community. But we also know that without a viable and appropriately resourced counter-insurgency strategy, we will not see success in Afghanistan, and the future of Pakistan will remain in doubt. Driving terrorist safe havens out of Afghanistan is crucial but insufficient if al-Qaida and Taliban militants continue to find sanctuary in the remote border regions of western Pakistan.

Eliminating the terrorist threat to the United States that emanates from terrorist sanctuaries in the region is our No. 1 goal. A U.S. withdrawal, in whole or in part, from Afghanistan in the near term would be a tacit, yet unambiguous, approval for the return of Taliban control of Afghanistan. In turn, this would lead to the establishment of more safe havens for many of the world's most violent and feared terrorists.

But what happens when our forces eventually pull back? Replacing those sanctuaries with secure environments and stable governance is the key to ensuring that terrorists do not gain another foothold in the future.

As we have fought this war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, we have learned a lot about al-Qaida, terrorism, and our own intelligence capabilities. On July 9, 2004, the committee unanimously issued its phase I report on the prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. I view this truly bipartisan effort as one of the committee's most successful oversight accomplishments.

The comprehensive 511-page Iraq WMD report identified numerous analytic and collection failures in the intelligence community's work on Iraq's WMD programs. These underlying failures caused most of the major key judgments in the Iraq WMD National Intelligence Estimate to be either overstated or not supported by the underling intelligence reporting. In turn, American policymakers relied, in part, on these key judgments in deciding whether to support the war against Iraq.

The committee's Iraq WMD Report served as a valuable ``lessons- learned'' exercise. It has had a profound impact on the way the intelligence community does business and interacts with Congress and the White House. It also set the standard for future committee reviews. In my opinion, the committee members and staff who completed the project performed a great service to our Nation.

At the end of 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The Governmental Affairs Committee had the lead on this bill, and the act implemented a number of recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, including the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

After 6 years, the jury is still out on the ODNI. Some have argued the office is an unnecessary bureaucratic layer. Others have said the office is too big and needs to be downsized. Still others are concerned that the DNI's authority is being undermined by decisionmakers in the White House and the Department of Justice--a point with ample evidence over the past several years. While these observations have some merit, I believe the ODNI serves an important leadership function within the intelligence community and should not be abandoned.

There is, however, room for improvement, so I sponsored a number of legislative provisions that should enhance the DNI's authorities with respect to accountability reviews and major system acquisitions. While some of these

provisions were recently signed into law, more will need to be done to strengthen the effectiveness of the ODNI.

Turning to battlefield intelligence, the committee has spent a considerable amount of time conducting oversight of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Intelligence from detainees has proven to be a most effective source of intelligence to protect the Nation. That is why we must capture the enemy if at all possible, instead of just killing them. I am concerned lately that due to our lack of effective detention and interrogation policies today our operators in the field feel compelled to kill vice capture. This is understandable, for unless you are in Iraq or Afghanistan, where would you detain enemy combatants to the United States? More troubling to me, we seem to be releasing a number of individuals whom we have already detained, only to see more than 20 percent of them take action against us on the battlefield again. I have a comprehensive approach to this issue that I have been working on with other members that will be introduced on the floor.

Regarding the CIA's interrogation program, I believe the program produced valuable intelligence information. My opinion is not a partisan one. Recently, we learned that the Obama Justice Department and Judge Kaplan, a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York, agree with my assessment. Judge Kaplan is presiding over the Federal trial of Ahmed Ghailani, an alleged member of al-Qaida indicted on charges of participating in the bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa. Last July, Judge Kaplan agreed with the Department of Justice and found that ``on the record before the Court and as further explained in the [classified] Supplement, the CIA Program was effective in obtaining useful intelligence from Ghailani throughout his time in CIA custody.''

In March 2009, the committee began a bipartisan review of the CIA's interrogation program, based upon carefully negotiated terms of reference. Unfortunately, later that year, the Attorney General decided to re-open criminal investigations of the CIA employees involved in the CIA's detention and interrogation program. I believed then that the Attorney General's decision would impede the committee's ability to conduct interviews of key witnesses, thereby diminishing the value of the review. As a result, I withdrew minority staff from the committee's review. The majority pressed ahead and has refused to comply with committee rules to keep the minority fully and currently informed, but it soon ran into the obstacles I foresaw, with CIA personnel declining to speak with them based on the advice of counsel. And who would blame them?

The majority has spent valuable time and resources on this matter, and the CIA has conveyed that it had to pull personnel off current mission requirements to support their effort. I believe that limited committee and government resources would be better spent on topics of oversight interest on programs that are in operation today.

One of the most disturbing leaks that I have witnessed during my tenure on the committee occurred in December 2005, when the New York Times published a story describing the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP. Some view the leakers as heroes. I do not share that view. In fact, intelligence operators in the field at the time told me that their ability to gain valuable information was reduced dramatically. Michael Hayden, then Director of the CIA, stated that we had begun to apply the Darwinian theory to terrorism because from then on we would only be catching the dumb ones. Frankly, I am amazed the Department of Justice has yet to prosecute Thomas Tamm, a DOJ attorney who openly bragged in a Newsweek article that he intentionally revealed information about this highly classified and compartmented program. Tamm and his fellow leakers are traitors who have done serious damage to our national security. Yet this administration refuses to prosecute this open and shut case. Why?

In order to ease concerns of critics, the President's TSP was submitted to and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Unfortunately, in May 2007, this new arrangement started to unravel when the FISA Court issued a ruling that caused significant gaps in our intelligence collection against foreign terrorists.

Although DNI Mike McConnell pleaded to Congress for help, the Congress failed to respond. Under the looming pressure of the August recess, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and I co-sponsored the Protect America Act which Congress passed in the first week of August 2007.

The act did exactly what it was intended to. It closed the intelligence gaps that threatened the security of our Nation and of our troops. But it was lacking in one important aspect. It did not provide civil liability protections from ongoing frivolous lawsuits to those private partners who assisted the intelligence community with the TSP.

Following the passage of the Protect America Act, I worked to come up with a bipartisan, permanent solution to modernize FISA and give those private partners needed civil liability protections. The committee worked closely for months with the DNI, the Department of Justice, and experts from the intelligence community to ensure that there would be no unintended operational consequences from any of the provisions included in our bipartisan product.

In February 2008, after many hearings, briefings, and much debate on the Senate floor, the Senate passed the FISA Amendments Act by a strong, bipartisan vote of 68-29. The Senate's bill reflected the Intelligence Committee's conclusion that those electronic communications service providers who assisted with the TSP acted in good faith and deserved civil liability protection from frivolous lawsuits. The Senate bill also went further than any legislation in history in protecting the potential privacy interests of U.S. persons whose communications may be acquired through foreign targeting.

After months of protracted and difficult negotiations with the House, Congress finally passed the FISA Amendments Act on July 9, 2008, and the President signed it into law the very next day. The final law achieved the goals of the original Senate bill, albeit less elegantly. While the act is more burdensome than I would prefer, we did preserve the intelligence community's ability to keep us safe, and we protected the electronic communications service providers from those frivolous lawsuits.

I consider my involvement in the passage of the Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Act to be two of the highlights of my legislative career. There is, however, still work to be done. A number of provisions in the FISA Amendments Act are set to sunset at the end of next year. Also, there are three additional FISA provisions related to roving wiretaps, business records court orders, and the lone wolf provision, that are set to expire on February 28, 2011. I urge Congress and the President to work closely together to ensure that the provisions are made permanent, without adding unnecessary requirements or limitations that will hamper our intelligence collection capabilities.

I mentioned earlier that recently the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 was signed into law. When I became vice chairman of the committee in 2007, my top priority was to get an intelligence authorization bill signed into law, and I am thankful that with the leadership of Senator Feinstein, we finally met that goal. The 2010 intelligence authorization bill, while light on authorization, was heavy on legislative provisions. I am pleased that a number of good government provisions which I sponsored were included in the bill.

The law imposes new requirements on the intelligence community to manage better their major systems acquisitions. Too often, we have seen IC acquisitions of major systems, i.e., over $500 million, balloon in cost and decrease in performance. These provisions will operate together to address the long-standing problem of out-of-control cost overruns in these acquisitions. Modeled on the successful Nunn-McCurdy provisions in title 10 of the United States Code, these provisions encourage greater involvement by the DNI in the acquisitions process and help the congressional intelligence committees perform more effective and timely oversight of cost increases.

Another good government provision established a requirement for the intelligence community to conduct vulnerability assessments of its major systems. A significant vulnerability in a major system can impede the operation of that system, waste taxpayer dollars, and create counterintelligence concerns. This provision requires the DNI to conduct initial and subsequent vulnerability assessments for any major system, and its items of supply, that is included in the National Intelligence Program. These assessments will ensure that any vulnerabilities or risks associated with a particular system are identified and resolved at the earliest possible stage.

A third good government provision gives the DNI the authority to conduct accountability reviews of intelligence community elements and personnel in relation to their significant failures or deficiencies. It also encourages IC elements to address internal failures or deficiencies, something they at times have been reluctant to do. In the event these elements are reluctant or unable to do so, this provision gives the DNI the authority he needs to conduct his own reviews.

Finally, my future budget projection provision requires the DNI to do what every American family does on a regular basis--map out a budget. The DNI, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, must provide congressional Intelligence Committees with a future year intelligence plan and a long-term budget projection for each fiscal year. These important planning tools will enable the DNI and the congressional intelligence communities to ``look over the horizon'' and resolve significant budgetary issues before they become problematic.

As I leave the Senate and contemplate what I have learned during my service in Congress and on the Intelligence Committee, I have a number of recommendations for future members and leaders of the committee.

One of the intelligence community's greatest failures was its complete waste of billions of dollars spent to develop satellites that never took a single picture. Senator Feinstein and I have strongly voiced our abiding concern to all four DNIs that the Intelligence Community is still spending far too much money on imagery satellites that are too big, too few, and too costly. We have put forth solid alternatives that would produce more satellites at far less cost, be less fragile, and perform as well or better than the unaffordable plan in the President's budget.

Just this month, an independent analysis by some of the country's very best astrophysicists confirmed that such an alternative, based on a combination of commercial and classified technologies, was essentially as capable, but about half as expensive as the administration's program. Sadly, our ideas have met with ``NIH'' resistance--``not invented here.''

Even worse, it appears that this resistance has been based in part on the NRO's unhealthy reliance upon, and apparent subordination to, the contractor that builds these incredibly expensive satellites. In spite of this resistance, Congress saw fit to appropriate over $200 million to explore a better path forward, and I urge my colleagues in both Houses of Congress to sustain that effort. I also urge the new DNI, in the strongest terms, to reconsider this issue afresh, and with an open mind. Our committee recommended his confirmation on the hope and expectation that he would do so.

The committee has been following the cyber threat issue for a long time. Cyber attacks happen every day. Our government, businesses, citizens, and even social networking sites all have been hit.

In an ever increasing cyber age, where our financial system conducts trades via the Internet, families pay bills online, and the government uses computers to implement war strategies, successful cyber attacks can be devastating. Unless our private sector and government start down a better path to protect our information networks, serious damage to our economy and our national security will follow.

Senator Hatch and I introduced a legislative proposal that takes the first step by creating a solid infrastructure that is responsible and accountable for coordinating our government's cyber efforts. The bill is built on three principles. First, we must be clear about where Congress should, and, more importantly, should not legislate. Second, there must be one person in charge--someone outside the Executive Office of the President who is unlikely to claim executive privilege, but who has real authority to coordinate our government cyber security efforts. Third, we need a voluntary public/private partnership to facilitate sharing cyber threat information, research, and technical support.

We believe that once this infrastructure is established, the assembled government and private sector experts will be able to provide guidance on the next steps--including any further legislation--needed to enhance our our cyber safety.

In the aftermath of 9/11, we captured hundreds of al-Qaida terrorists and associates. Many of these could be called low-level fighters--of the same type as the 9/11 hijackers but no less dangerous to our security. Others, such as 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and senior al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah, were identified as high-value detainees and placed in the CIA's interrogation and detention program.

After details about the program were leaked in the Washington Post, the President announced, in September 2006, that these high-value detainees would be transferred to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Since 2002, Gitmo has housed terrorists picked up on the battlefield or suspected of terrorist activities. Today, 174 detainees remain at Gitmo.

In 2008, in a sharply divided opinion and despite clear language from Congress to the contrary, the Supreme Court gave Gitmo detainees the constitutional right to challenge their detention in our courts. Since then, 38 detainees have successfully challenged their detention.

With the recidivism rate for former Gitmo detainees at over 20 percent, Congress must step in once again and draw some boundaries. We cannot afford to let more potentially dangerous detainees go free. We need a clear, consistent framework for these habeas challenges with a standard of proof that takes into account the wartime conditions under which many of these detainees were captured. It is unreasonable to hold the government to the standards and evidentiary tests that apply in ordinary habeas cases. There is nothing ordinary about war and our habeas laws must reflect that.

Now that the President has abolished the CIA's program and ordered the closure of Gitmo, we need clear policies for holding and questioning suspected terrorists, especially overseas. We must abandon the automatic impulse to Mirandize terrorists captured inside the United States. Prosecution can be a very effective response to terrorism, but it must never take precedence over getting potential lifesaving intelligence.

I have been working with several of my colleagues on legislation that would set clear lines for law of war detention and habeas challenges. Our Nation should not risk another Gitmo detainee rejoining the fight. We cannot risk losing more and timely intelligence because we have no system for detaining and interrogating terrorists. These are critical national security issues and Congress's voice must be heard as soon as possible.

Last December, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight as it headed to Detroit. Shortly after the failed attack, al-Qaida in the Arabian peninsula claimed responsibility. AQAP counts among its senior leadership and members former Gitmo detainees who have returned to their old ways. As the Christmas Day attack reminded us, rising recidivism rates for Gitmo detainees are more than just a statistic and claims that a 20-percent recidivism rate ``isn't that bad''--as one senior administration official put it--must be challenged.

As part of its goal to close Gitmo, the administration continues its efforts to persuade other countries to accept detainees. Whatever one's views on closing Gitmo, we all have an interest in making sure that no former Gitmo detainee kills or harms us or our allies. As these transfers continue, the Intelligence Committee--and Congress--must pay close attention to these and earlier transfer decisions.

As part of the committee's oversight responsibilities, staff have been traveling to those countries that accepted detainees under the current and previous administrations. They have also been reviewing assessments prepared by the intelligence community and the Guantanamo Review Task Force and other documents. A lot of work has been done, but there is more to do.

Thus far, our review has raised some significant concerns. We all know that transfers to Yemen are a bad idea, but other countries may not have either the legal authority or capability to keep track of these detainees effectively. Still others simply view these former detainees as being free. If we do not know what these detainees are doing, we end up relying on luck that we will catch them before they act.

Having luck on your side is always a good thing, but it stinks as a counterrorism policy. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pay close attention to this issue. Unfortunately, it is one that I think will continue to be around for a very long time.

I hope these reflections, observations, and recommendations will be of use to the members of the next Congress. I have been deeply honored to serve on the Intelligence Committee with my distinguished and talented colleagues. I also salute the fine men and women of the intelligence community who have given so much for the safety of our country. I wish them all well in their future endeavors.

In addition, I wish to address an obvious problem--leaks. I have already made reference to some of the more disastrous leaks that occurred during my tenure, but unfortunately, these were just the tip of the iceberg. There are simply too many to list. I shudder to think about the sources and methods that have been disclosed, and the lives that will likely be lost, as a result of the obscene amount of classified information compromised by Wikileaks. Of course, to call this a leak case is gross mischaracterization; it is more like a tidal wave.

We are blessed with our open society and our many freedoms. However, our ability to protect these freedoms and preserve our national security depends upon our ability to keep our secrets safe.

This problem needs a multifaceted solution. We must first deter and neutralize the leakers. There should be significant criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that can be imposed on leakers. Leakers should face significant jail time, pay heavy fines, forfeit any profits, lose their pensions, and be fired from their jobs. We should also not allow the first amendment to be used as a shield for criminal activity. It should be a crime to knowingly solicit a person to reveal classified information for an unauthorized purpose or to knowingly publish or possess such information. Leaks will not stop until a significant number of leakers have been appropriately punished.

Other steps may lessen the problem. Government agencies in possession of classified information should ensure that information is properly classified in the first instance and that their employees are thoroughly trained in security procedures. Also, we should explore technological solutions for tracking classified documents and establishing singular audit trails.

On a related issue, we also need to ensure that the security clearance process is repaired. An excellent interagency reform process has applied more resources and better processes to increase the efficiency of the system, eliminate backlogs, and in many cases, shorten the time required to process a security clearance. Although significant progress has been achieved in recent years, there is still a lot of room for improvement. We must continue to use technology to wring more efficiency from the security clearance system, and make it less of an obstacle to success for our intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Just as importantly, we must modernize the security clearance system to make it a more useful measure of suitability for serving in sensitive government positions. The interagency security clearance reform process is studying a new process, called ``continuous evaluation,'' which seeks to use automated records checks and other similar processes to assess risk in populations of cleared personnel on a regular basis, rather than waiting five years to conduct a reinvestigation, as we currently do.

The devil will be in the details, but I believe a ``continuous evaluation'' system could be much more effective than our current practices in detecting security threats in our agencies before they become a problem.

The use of biometrics--fingerprints, DNA, facial recognition scans, and the like--has yielded dramatic dividends on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, and is a vital tool for detecting terrorist threats before they arrive on our shores. Biometrics help us separate the good guys from the bad guys on the battlefield, and can ensure that we know that the foreign tourist, businessman, or student who wants to visit the United States is not actually a dangerous terrorist.

We have made significant progress in the collection and use of biometric data in the last decade, but there are still too many policy and procedural obstacles to sharing biometric data between U.S. Government agencies. Moreover, far too much of the funding for these important biometric efforts is contained in supplemental funding requests.

We need to continue breaking down the barriers to sharing biometric data. We need a roadmap in the base intelligence budget for the permanent sustainment of our biometric efforts in the decades to come. Biometrics must remain an important tool for dealing with national security threats well beyond the end of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The committee spent much of 2005 and 2006 working on legislation related to the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. We held numerous hearings and reported out a bill that contained a number of provisions that were ultimately included in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act.

Among other things, the act made permanent 14 of the 16 USA PATRIOT Act provisions that were set to expire at the end of 2006. It extended the sunsets of three FISA provisions--roving wiretaps; business record court orders; and lone wolf--until the end of 2009. Also, it created a new National Security Division within the Department of Justice, supervised by a new assistant attorney general, with the goal of ensuring that the information sharing walls that existed prior to 9/11 are never reconstructed.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, the size and budget of the intelligence community has nearly doubled, and much of that growth has been in the IC's analytic community. Even as we hire more and more analysts to focus on national intelligence priorities, most of them work on current and tactical missions--answering questions and giving briefings on near-term issues--without ever producing a deep understanding of longer term critical issues.

Furthermore, the intelligence community continues to operate as a loose confederation, with no universal standards for analytic training, tools, technology, and personnel policies. These issues, coupled with a lack of a federated communitywide analytic work plan, often result in redundant or conflicting analyses, and in some cases, a major gap in coverage or understanding of issues of significant concern. It is time for the ODNI to bring analytic direction and standards to the IC so that the analytic community can become a true community of analysts.

I have often voiced my concern about the abysmal state of the intelligence community's foreign language programs and the slow pace of progress in correcting deficiencies. The collection of intelligence depends heavily upon language, whether information is gathered in the field from a human source or from a technical collection system.

More than 9 years after 9/11, and more than a year after a major shift in focus in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the cadre of intelligence professionals capable of speaking, reading, or understanding critical regional languages such as Pashto, Dari, or Urdu remains in critically short supply. In spite of significant congressional interest and funding, progress has been disappointing.

Persistent critical shortages in some languages could contribute to the loss of intelligence information and affect the ability of the intelligence community to exploit what it does collect. I

encourage IC leaders to make foreign language learning and maintenance a priority mission and a ``must fund'' for resource allocation.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.